Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotation Contradiction: the description states 'Idempotent per tx hash' while the annotations set idempotentHint to false, directly contradicting the structured metadata. The description does add useful behavioral detail about on-chain receipt verification and EventTrader listing, but the contradiction forces a score of 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with no filler: precondition, verification and outcome, then idempotency. The most important operational constraint ('after signing') is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no safety annotations, the description covers the core lifecycle: what to record, how the receipt is verified on-chain, and what side effect results. It is not a 5 because the return/error behavior when verification fails is not described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including platform-specific meanings for tx_hash and token_address. The description adds workflow context about factory recipients and the TokenLaunched event, but it does not substantially clarify individual parameter mechanics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('record it') on a precise object (a signed cross-launch tx from launchpad_launch_token's cross_launches) and defines the outcome: on-chain verification and listing on the EventTrader token page. This clearly differentiates it from launchpad_launch_token, which creates the launch rather than recording it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to call it: after signing a cross-launch tx via launchpad_launch_token's cross_launches. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternative record/list tools, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.